Celebrities are all over the media these days. The public seems to have an insatiable appetite for finding out the tiniest detail for what they all do. This one group took things too far.
It is probably an offensive stereotype to classify this film as the perfect example of what is wrong with teenagers today. But it is probably not just teenagers who are to blame for the proliferation of celebrities who are only famous because of their wealth and not for actually doing anything. I just don't get it. But what really struck me about this film was how lax famous people are about their security. The way these kids were able to break into people's homes was amazing. Do people still really leave a key under the door mat? Or leave back doors open? Sophia Coppola has done a very good job of presenting this story. She does not over analyse the situation and pretty much presents the events as they played out with very little social commentary. I think this was a clever way to do it as these characters pretty much speak for themselves. While they are not 'rich', they are still very well off and I think the blame lies with the parents. The film is not a very good advertisement for home schooling. Marc is the only one of the group who seems to come from an average house and get sucked into the groups madness. The girls have very little morals and only seem to care about their own well being and making themselves famous.
Katie Chang is excellent as the leader of the group Rebecca. She plays the role so well that you see she is really evil. The cool manipulative way she charms Marc and then betrays him. Equally as good is Emma Watson as Nicki. She does not care about anyone but herself and is brilliant at acting nice when underneath she is pure evil. As Marc Israel Broussard has the best role. He is the one we as an audience can relate to and we feel sorry for him as he gets drawn into the scheme. He is the only one in the group you have any sympathy for.
One more example of what amazes me about society. I do not know what it is about these vacuous celebrities that fascinates people so much. And I am still baffled.
Drug smugglers are always trying to come up with ways to get their product across boarders. This is one of the more interesting ones.
There are times when reviews of films can be quite scathing. This is one such occasion. I don't think I read or heard any good reviews for this film. Normally bad reviews are supposed to be a guide for what not to see, but, depending on the film, this can be more of an encouragement to me. I have to go see the film to see if it is as bad as what everyone says it is. Sometimes my expectations are so low, because of these reviews that I become pleasantly surprised by how much I end up enjoying it. While this film is not the greatest comedy ever made, neither is it the unmitigated disaster that most critics would have you believe. The concept is a nice one for a broad comedy and lends itself nicely to some great juxtaposition humour. The film has lots of it and some works but some does not. The biggest problem I had though was the film's length. There is a whole section when Will Poulter's character Kenny goes to hospital. I know it was meant to be a plot point to give the heroes another obstacle in their journey but it felt unnecessary.
Jason Sudekis is an excellent comedic actor. He is another one of those actors who doe not usually play a 'character' but he has enough witty one-liners to keep you entertained. Jennifer Aniston seems to be taking her career in a good direction by playing less clean-cut characters. I like how she is embracing her inner dirty girl. Here she does a decent job but being Jennifer Aniston she would not go all the way when playing a stripper which would have been better. Emma Roberts is also getting dirty herself and is quite good at it. I remember Will Poulter from the brilliant film 'Son Of Rambow' and he has certainly grown up a lot since then. He is excellent in this film as the group's punching bag. Ed Helms, Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn are very good in their supporting roles.
This was not the horrendous disaster that I was expecting. I found myself enjoying it a lot more than I expected and got a few decent laughs out of it.
Magicians pulling off a heist would be an intriguing concept for a movie. Sadly though in the hands of Louis Leterrier it has become ordinary. I am a fan of heist movies and love to guess at the various twists and turns the story might take. It took me a while to work out what it was about this film that I did not like and I think it was the film's perspective. The film is told from the perspective of Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), the detective looking for the magicians. For me that was the wrong way to tell the story as it takes away from the more interesting characters in the film which are the four magicians pulling off the heist. The audience should be getting to know these characters and why they are doing what they are doing. In some ways I know that it might give away the films final reveal but I'm sure there are ways to work around it. The final reveal is very good but the magicians reason for being involved in the heist is quite lame and a big let down. Perhaps if we knew the characters better and their motivation we would care more about their reasons.
Jesse Eisenberg is very good as the leader of the magicians. But as mentioned above we do not get to know his character all that well so his role is mostly doing magic on stage. The same can be said of his team played by Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher and Dave Franco. Mark Ruffalo is his usual excellent self as he gets the most to do. Melanie Laurent does a decent job in the side-kick role. Morgan Freeman seems to be having the most fun in his role as the magician debunker. Michael Caine is OK but his is another character that lacks motivation.
There was so much potential here to have a great fun heist film. But sadly the director and writers have let us down.
The last Wolverine film 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' while financially successful is not very highly regarded. So thankfully they did a 'do over'.
We have been so conditioned with most comic book films to expect a certain type of film. Christopher Nolan has managed to buck this convention but many others go with the same formulae. This time it seems the producers of the X-Men series have gone for story over action. That is not to say that there is no action but there is very little when compared with many other action films you see. I think the hiring of director James Mangold helped in that area. He is not know for his big budget action films but for low key character films. We explore the character of Logan/Wolverine more with this film and it is all the better for it. There are still some great action sequences in the film and James handles them with a great deal of excitement.
Hugh Jackman has so firmly established himself as Wolverine that it will take a while to see anyone else in the role. It is this reason that he does such a good job with the character. The supporting cast are also excellent. Rila Fukushima is probably the best of them for me. She gives such an amazingly layered performance and is so subtle in some aspects that I was totally blown away.
'The Wolverine' makes us love Wolverine all over again. It is more character driven and so all the better for it.
One of the biggest decisions a parent can make for their child is what to name them. It can sometimes effect their lives. Especially if they choose the wrong one.
Films that are based on plays can be tricky to adapt. Plays usually take place in only a few locations and use a different style of performance. These need to be changed in some ways to make them more cinematic. This story takes place in one room and is just four characters talking but manages to be very cinematic and is a good film. The inappropriate naming of a baby is only one element to the story that explores this groups friendships and secrets are revealed. It is very funny and there are several laugh-out-loud moments. The various twists in the story are also nicely handled and are also very funny too.
The cast have a great deal of chemistry too which makes the film enjoyable. You feel like they are really friends. I have been getting acquainted with Patrick Bruel in a few films lately and he is an excellent actor. Charles Berling is great as the groups hotheaded member. Judith El Zein is the outsider of the group but still feels like she fits in. Guillaume de Tonquedec is excellent as the one in the group with biggest secret. The best though is Valerie Benquigui as the most neurotic of the group. It might be because her character has more to do but she has some of the films best moments.
A great self contained French comedy that nicely explores the reationships of a group of tight-knit friends.
In 2011 Seth Rogen provided the voice for the alien Paul in the film 'Paul' written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Now Seth Rogen has co-written and co-directed a film about the end of the world. Coincidence?
There has been a lot of criticism about the films released in this year's blockbuster season. That they mostly deal with doom and gloom and the end of the world. While 'This Is The End' deals with that subject it is done in a humourous way. When actors play themselves in films there is mixed emotions. On the one hand there is delight in seeing an actor being themselves as opposed to a character they are playing. But you are left wondering if they are 'really' playing themselves. I think there is a certain thrill in guessing what's real and what's not. The apocalypse premise is just there to let these actors play around with their public perceptions and hopefully develop funny situations. When these guys have improvised in the past, for me, it did not always seem funny. But I really liked this one. There are some quite funny scenes here and I found myself enjoying it a lot more than I expected.
When actors are playing themselves, are they really acting? I the guys are playing more the public perception of them and not the real selves. Even so it is quite funny. Normally I am not a fan of Danny McBride but I thought he was quite funny here. His scene with James Franco where they discuss porn is the highlight of the film. The other thrill is seeing all the cameo appearances by famous faces. Michael Cera also has some of the films best scenes.
It might not really be how these actors behave but it is still quite a funny film. Any film that ends with a musical number is not all that bad.
Co-writers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright bring their Cornetto trilogy to an end. Both literally and figuratively.
For those who read my very first blog will know, one of my top 10 favourite films of all time is 'Shaun Of The Dead'. Not only was it brilliantly written but it featured my three favourite genres: comedy, romance and horror. The follow up 'Hot Fuzz' was brilliant too. Now Simon and Edgar take us to 'The World's End'. You can tell that I am a huge fan of Edgar, Simon and Nick Frost but I am willing to admit there are problems with their work (except maybe 'Shaun Of The Dead' which I think is perfect). The problem with this film is the mixture of genres. In 'Shaun' they were able to successfully make a romantic comedy with zombies. In 'Hot Fuzz' they managed to make a big action packed buddy cop film but set it in a small English village. This time they were less successful in making a reunion comedy with alien invasion. While there are many funny moments there were they were just not as funny as their previous films. I did not laugh-out-loud as much as I have before. I also noticed a few problems with the plot and characters. Despite all that I still enjoyed the film. Edgar is skilled at making create action scenes and there are several good ones here. I really liked the fight scene in the toilets. The films best moment was the way they referenced Cornetto.
I think Simon Pegg is one of the best comedic actors working today. He can also do drama as well. He is excellent here but I found his character too annoying and thus not as funny as he has been in previous films. I did however like Nick Frost in this film more than in previous films. He seems more subdued in this role and it really suits him. Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine and Eddie Marsan are great as the rest of the gang but don't have all that much to do plot wise. I loved Rosamund Pike in this film. She is mostly known for her dramatic roles so I liked to see her expanding into comedy. There was also great delight in spotting some familiar faces (and voices) in cameo roles.
While it does not live up to the high expectations I had for it based on previous Cornetto films. Being a fan I'm willing to over look its flaws.
The film world was shocked when director Guillermo del Toro gave up directing 'The Hobbit' trilogy because he could not wait around for MGM to get their financing issues sorted. Instead he went off to make this film.
Guillermo is a brilliant film director. He is not only a great visual director who creates wonderful creatures and beautiful images but he makes great stories as well. Sadly he was unable to bring that greatness to 'Pacific Rim' and why I hate it so much. While there are a few minor good points with the film I feel that in general it is a terrible film. Admittedly the films trailers did not heighten my expectations. The idea of giant robots fighting giant demons did not look all that thrilling. It looked too much like a mash-up of 'Godzilla' and 'Tranformers'. I did have a bit of faith that Guillermo might be the one to take a cheesy and bland concept like this and turn it into something interesting. Sadly for he has failed big time. He is guilty of doing what 'Oblivion' did and starts the film by using voice over to set up and explain the setting for the film. There are some visuals but they should have stuck with that and not used voice over. Then the rest of the film is pretty ordinary storytelling with all the familiar plot points you see in films of this kind. The characters are all the same as well. Only a few have any interesting features. What really lost it for me was when they decided to build walls around cities to protect them from the aliens. Besides the fact that a wall seemed flimsy there is the fact that they used humans to build the walls rather than the huge robots which were not being used. Considering the number of people who died while building the walls.
Charlie Hunnam does look and act like a typical hero but he is still boring. Charlie is unable to bring anything distinctive to the role. Equally as boring is the normally brilliant Idris Elba. He plays the typical boss who, when he is not making big speeches to inspire his men, is acting all angry and tough. The only actors that seemed to bring anything of interest to their roles are Charlie Day and the ever reliable Ron Pearlman. Their characters are the only fun thing in the film and keep it from being really terrible.
Being a film by Guillermo del Toro I am probably being more harsh on it than I should. But I expected more from this brilliant film maker.
We don't seem to get many Spanish films outside film festivals unless they are directed by Pedro Almodovar. But this one was a big hit in Spain so it gets a release here.
As you know I love films that are largely dialogue driven. People talking about their lives and working through issues. That is essentially what this film entails. It is just a series of scenes of people talking to someone about their love lives and issues they are having. I quite enjoyed these seemingly unrelated scenes. They are very cleverly written as the exposition for each situation is woven so cleverly into the dialogue that you don't really notice it. It is done in a such a natural way. There are a couple of scenes which have some really great twists and turns. This provides much of the film humour as you see these characters struggle with their many relationship issues.
As you can see from the poster these actors are big stars in Spain. I am not overly familiar with any of them but they are still excellent. It is an ensemble film so no one actor stand out. To me they are all equally good and are quite funny in a very realistic way.
An excellent alternative to all the glossy Hollywood romantic comedies you see in cinemas. There's very little action but that does not depreciate its value.
The team behind 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' try to bring their magic to the wild, wild west but not like the movie 'Wild Wild West'.
Sadly it looks like it ended up being 'Wild Wild West'. By now you know it has become one of many flops that came out during the USA summer blockbuster period and has been a big loss for Disney. For me there are a few good elements but they just did not come together as a cohesive whole. I can understand film makers wanting to give people value for money by making really long films but they need to make them interesting to sustain the length and sadly director Gore Verbinski is not able to do that here. I am a big fan of Gore's and have enjoyed all his other films. But I think he has joined that group of directors who just do not know when to stop their films. 'The Lone Ranger' just seems to drag along with a story that could easily have been shortened and tightened to make it more tense. While I cannot say exactly what needed to be cut just a general trim of a few scenes would have been sufficient. I was also not fond of the use of the railroad as the films central premise. It does provide for the film's best moment at the end with an exciting chase scene, I don't think it was a good plot for the entire film. You are meant to care that the evil rail road owner who wants to use the rail road to effectively take over the country. I never felt that anyone was threatened by this premise. I suppose I should feel bad for the Indians who were used as pawns in the take over but I did not feel that strongly for them.
Johnny Depp is one of the best actors working today and I love when he plays his more wacky characters. Sadly that is not the case here. Part of the problem is that he is an actor of such high regard that he must get top billing in the film even if he is supposed to be playing the lead characters side-kick. Normally his characters are so strong that they usually steal the film and are the thing you most remember. I did not feel that here. While he is trying to play one of his more wacky characters, he seems to have toned it down slightly. I'm not sure if that was so he did not overshadow Armie Hammer who is supposed to be playing the title character. Armi Hammer is quite good but I tend to get the impression he is not playing the part as heroically as he should. He does not come across as forceful enough to be the title character . Tom Wilkinson is very good as the bad rail road owner but as mentioned above I did not feel his plot to take over the country was effective enough. William Fichtner is probably the best thing in the film with his disfigured face making him an effective henchman. Also great is Helena Bonham Carter but I wish she had a bigger part.
There was the potential there for greatness but it seems to have been squandered by a director that cannot show some restraint.
